W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

From: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:15:42 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Atom-syntax Syntax' <atom-syntax@imc.org>
Message-ID: <20090831101542.GB21652@tumbolia.org>
Please keep the me or the W3C in the CSS as I'm not subscribed to the Atom list.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:58:44AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> I agree with that; I just wanted to point out that "a parent document"
> is not necessarily going to convince people that it includes any
> *ancestor*. It appears the use of "up" in CMIS therefore is incorrect
> and needs to be replaced by something else (now including the Atom
> mailing list).

I find the wording confusing:

  An Atom link element with a rel attribute value of "up" may be used to
  reference a resource where parent entries of an entry or a feed may be found.

        - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-03#section-2.3

It's not immediately clear to me how this contradicts the IANA registry.

> I think it'll be sufficient to tune the text once "up" gets
> re-registered when the new registry is created. In general this shows
> that it's dangerous to register relations minted by somebody else
> (HTML5) when that spec isn't yet stable.

Sounds good to me.

Thanks,

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 10:16:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:09 GMT